{"id":146,"date":"2020-05-27T10:30:17","date_gmt":"2020-05-27T14:30:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/delawarebusinesslaw\/?p=146"},"modified":"2020-05-27T10:30:17","modified_gmt":"2020-05-27T14:30:17","slug":"yet-another-minute-about-minutes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/delawarebusinesslaw\/2020\/05\/27\/yet-another-minute-about-minutes\/","title":{"rendered":"Yet Another Minute About Minutes"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Photo by @spokane1997<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The minutes of corporate board meetings are, candidly, too often treated as an afterthought.\u00a0 This can lead to the official records being deemed not much of a record at all when later reviewed.\u00a0 Indeed, a reviewing court might even draw certain inferences based on what it finds, or does not find, in the minutes.\u00a0 I have discussed in this blog several times (here<\/a> and here<\/a>) certain nuances that go into the craft that is drafting a set of board minutes that properly memorialize the directors’ fealty to their roles as fiduciaries.<\/p>\n

A recent opinion from the Court of Chancery demonstrates why, even at the time of setting the agenda for a board meeting, the corporate secretary should be cognizant of how that meeting will be memorialized in the corporate books and records.\u00a0 In an April 27, 2020, Memorandum Opinion in Hughes v. Hu, et al.<\/em>, C.A. No. 2019-0112-JTL, the Vice Chancellor drew certain plaintiff-friendly, pleadings-stage inferences in ruling on a motion to dismiss based on what was–and more importantly, what was not<\/em>–included in the corporate board minutes regarding the topics in dispute (this Blog addressed the substantive matters in dispute here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Critical to the court’s analysis was that prior to filing his complaint, the stockholder plaintiff had exercised his rights under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law to examine the books and records of the company.\u00a0 While the company had produced for inspection some books and records, the company stipulated that “any remaining materials requested by Plaintiff either do not exist or had been withheld on privilege grounds.”\u00a0 Thus, the court held that “if the Company failed to produce a document that it would reasonably be expected to possess if a particular event had occurred, then the plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable inference that the event did not occur.”<\/p>\n

The court used that holding as the basis for drawing a number of inferences in the plaintiff’s favor based on what was not included in or with the corporate minutes.\u00a0 For instance, in multiple instances where the corporate minutes referred to a document or presentation that the directors purportedly reviewed, but where no copy of such document was produced for inspection with the minutes in the Section 220 proceedings, the court inferred that such materials did not exist, and therefore were not reviewed by the directors in carrying out their duties.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the court also drew substantive inferences in plaintiff’s favor of the anticipated contents of documents referenced in the minutes but not appended to or presented with the such minutes.\u00a0 For instance, a set of minutes stated that the Audit Committee approved a “Policy of Related-Party Transactions Relating to JV Shareholder,” but no such policy had been presented with the corporate books and records for inspection by the stockholder.\u00a0 Thus, the court held: “It is reasonable to infer at the pleading stage that the policy did not place meaningful restrictions on management.”<\/p>\n

Finally, it is worth noting that\u00a0 the court also highlighted in multiple places throughout the opinion the overall landscape presented by the corporate books and records.\u00a0 Specifically, the court noted relatively long gaps between meetings of the audit committee, the types of tasks the directors were purportedly undertaking at such meetings, and the actual length of the meetings themselves.\u00a0 For example, the court held it was “reasonable to infer that with the Audit Committee having not met for almost a year, there was no possible way that the Audit Committee could have fulfilled all of the responsibilities it was given under the Audit Committee Charter during a fifty-minute meeting.”<\/p>\n

This opinion sheds light on the potential issues that might arise where corporate secretaries (or their counsel) have allowed the task of recording minutes of board meetings to become a mere footnote in the process of keeping accurate and meaningful corporate books and records.\u00a0 Based on this opinion, corporate record-keepers might:<\/p>\n